Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 19 (BOM)

Vanashakti v. Dharavi Redevelopment Project

2023-01-02

S.V.GANGAPURWALA, SANDEEP V.MARNE

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The Petitioner seeks directions against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to delete the area covered under the Mahim Nature Park Protected Forest, as described in Schedule 1 of the Notification dated 16 th March 1991 from the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (SRA) and the tender issued therein. 2. The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner strenuously contends that the area under the Mahim Nature Park is a protected forest. Same cannot form part of any development project. The tender issued by Respondent No.1 also does not specifically exclude the said area. The tender, on the contrary, recites a covenant that those properties which are open and/or not included in the redevelopment project, can be acquired and development rights can be created. According to the learned Senior Advocate, the Respondents do not have any right and authority to carry out any development activity within the area of Mahim Nature Park. The learned Senior Advocate also refers to the tender document to contend that the provision has been made to include the excluded area also. Clause A of Annexure D (Draft of State Support Agreement) is referred, which reads thus; "provided any excluded area desires to be included in the Project Area and to become part of integrated development to be carried out by the developer/s appointed for execution of the redevelopment plan to be included after due permission of DRP." 3. Further, sub clause XVIII of Clause 1.4 of the Introduction of the tender document is also relied on by the learned Senior Advocate to contend that if land is acquired from the excluded portion in Dharavi Notified area or outside, the cost of acquisition shall be borne by the SVP Company. 4. Further reliance is placed on clause 9 of the Introduction of the tender document to suggest that upon land of the Government / semi Government and private and not having any slum structures, may be acquired, after taking consent from such land owners by giving consideration to such owner, equal to either Transferrable Development Rights (TDRs) equivalent to the development rights attached to such land or constructed area in the Dharavi Redevelopment Project. 5. This Court, on 5/12/2022 asked Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to clarify as to whether the Mahim Nature Park is already excluded from the project area and also whether there is any plan for including the said area in the project. 6. 5. This Court, on 5/12/2022 asked Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to clarify as to whether the Mahim Nature Park is already excluded from the project area and also whether there is any plan for including the said area in the project. 6. Pursuant to the same the affidavit is filed by Respondent No.1. 7. Mr.Sathe, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 submits that in the pre bid meeting, it has been clarified by Respondent No.1 that Mahim Nature park is not proposed to be included and will not be included in the Dharavi Redevelopment Project. According to the learned Senior Advocate, the apprehension of the Petitioner has been addressed. 8 The Affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 pursuant to the order dtd. 5/12/2022 passed by this Court reads thus: 6. With respect to the contents of Para 26 to 31, I say that, vide Email dtd. 13/10/2022, this present Respondent had already communicated to the Petitioner No.2 that the Mahim Nature Park has already been excluded from the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) and further that the Mahim Nature Park is not a part of the DRP. It may be kindly noted that as a part of the Request for Qualification cum Request for proposal for Selection of a Lead Partner for redevelopment of Dharavi Notified Area (DNA), the pre bid Clarifications were issued to queries raised by the prospective bidders, wherein it was clearly stated that "....However, it is made amply clear that Mahin Nature Park is not proposed to be included in the Dharavi Redevelopment Project....." The Copy of the said document is already annexed to the present Petition by the Petitioners at Page No.259. I humbly state that the Email dtd. 13/10/2022 was self-explanatory and I deny that the said email of the present Respondent was misleading. 8. In the circumstances stated herein above, it is humbly repeated and reiterated that the Mahin Nature Park is excluded from the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) and the same is not a part of the DRP and hence the Mahin Nature Park is not going to be developed under Dharavi redevelopment Project. The present Public Interest Litigation is therefore misconceived and hence this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass necessary Orders and may kindly dispose of the Petition." 9. The present Public Interest Litigation is therefore misconceived and hence this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass necessary Orders and may kindly dispose of the Petition." 9. The Affidavit specifically and succinctly states that Mahim Nature Park is excluded from Dharavi Redevelopment Project and the same is not a part of the Dharavi Redevelopment Project and hence the Mahim Nature Park is not to be developed under the Dharavi Redevepment Project. 10. It is also accepted by the Petitioner that the Mahim Nature park is shown in the development plan as 'reserved for the nature park'. There cannot be user of the land, contrary to the reservation Basavraj in the development plan. In view of that, so long as the development plan stands showing the writ property as Mahim Nature Park, the same certainly cannot be developed for any purpose. 11 With the aforesaid observations, the PIL stands disposed of.